Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1887-12-07
GLADLY ress and dakpiaiaa
FOR P%ROHIslTlOa.
The Uaitcd states Supreme Court
Gives IN Important Decistan-Ths
Opinion Ny Jussice Harlan.

The Uaitcd states supreme Court
Gives an Important Decisfan-xhs
Opinion Ny Justice Harlan.
Washington Dec. GA yesy import
ant decision, aud one likely to be far
reaching III its consequences, was rend-
cred in the supreme court to-day, in the
so-calied Kansas prohibition cases of
Mugler against the state of Kansas
and the state OF Kansas agsist Seihod
and others. The Judgment of the court
was pronounced in q long and elaborate
opinion by Justice Harlan, who said:
The general question in eaoh case is
whether the prohibition statutes OF
Kansas sfe in conflict with that clause of
the fourteenth amendment WHOM pro-
yideE that mo state shall make or in
force aDy law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States, nor shall any state
deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property without due process of lew"
That legislation by q state prohibiting
the manufacture within her limlts OF in
toxicating liquors TO be there sold or
battered for general use as a beverage,
does not necessarily infringe on any
right, privilege or immunity assured by
the constitution OF the United
States Ia made clear by the
declDion OF this court, rem
dered before and since the adoption OF
the fourteenth amendment. II is, how
ever, commended, that although q state
may prohibit the manufacture OF in
toxicating liquors for sale or barter with
in her limits for general use as q
beverage, no convention or legislature
has the right, under our form OF govern
ment, to prohibit any citizen from
manufacturing for his own use, or for
export or storage, any article of food or
drink not endangering or affecting the
rights of others. The argument made
in support OF the first branch OF this
proposition, briefly stated. is:
That In implied compacts between a
state and citizen certain rights are re-
served by the latter which are guaranteed
by constitutional provision. and with
which tho state cannot interfere; that
among those rights is that OF menufac-
turing Tor ones own use, either food or
drink.
The propositions and the argument
madefn support equally concade the
right to manufacture for ones personal
use, but is subject to the condition that
such manufacture does pref ndicially at
feet the rights aud interests of the COM
munity, 1T follows from the very premises
stated by counsel that society
has power to protect itself by legislation
against the Injurious consequences OF
that business.
As was said in Mum VS., Iilingess
chile the power does not exist with the
whole people to control rights that are
purely and exclusively private, the gov.
eminent may require each citizen 80 to
conduct himself, and go to use his own
property. as to not unnecessarily ,injure
another. But by whom or by wha,
authority is it to be determined whether
the manufacture OF any particular arti-
ole OF drink, either for general use or for
the personal use of the maker, will iDjur.
ssSasi:.ase. the snalinf Under our
system that power is lodged with the
Legislative branch of the government. It
belongsto that department to exert what
are known as the police powers of the
state. Ii must determine, primarily,
what measures are appropriate or need
full for the protection Of public morals,
public health or public safety. 1t does
moi at all follow from these principles
that every statute enacted, %cstensibly for
the promotion OF these ends, is 10 be
accepted as the legitimate exertion OF
the police power Of the state. There are,
OF necessity, limits beyond which legis.
lation cannot rightfnlly go. AS the
court must obey the constitution rather
than She law+making department of the
government. 10 must upon its RESPONSE
biiity determine whether, in any par
tioulsr case, these limits have been pass-
ed. Keeping in view these principles as
governing the relations with each other oil
the Judicial end Legislative departments
Of the government, 1t is difficult To per
ceiye any ground sor the judiciary to de-
clare that prohibition by Kansas of the
manufacture or sale within her limits oil
intoxicating liquors for general use there
as . beverage is not fairly adapted to the
end Of protecting the community against
the evils which oonfessedly result from
the excessive use of ardent spirits. There
is hero no Justification for holding that
the state, under the guise merely OF DO.
lice regulations, is aiming to deprive
shy oitizea of his constitutional rights
for We cannot shut out of view the fact,
within Tine knowledge OF alis that public
heaith. pubic morals, and public safety
may 90 endangered by q general use OF
Intoxicating drinks. Nor can re ignore
the faot, established BY statistics, aceee-
sible TO every one. that the disorder,
pauperism, and csime prevalent in this
country, are IN q large measure directly
tiaceable TO this evil, III, therefore, The
state deems absolute prohibition OF the
manufacture and sale within her limits
OF Intoxicating liQuOfB for Othat thar